Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The inclusion of “any” is to capture situations where they are away from their local station. We will try to make that clearer. The intention is that they will report to their local station. I do not think it benefits an offender to have to travel 50 miles to another station. It does not benefit them because they do not evade anyone or anything. It does not change anything. We will make it clearer. Whether the reference is to “district” or “divisional”, it is a technical element to it.

In terms of the Parole Board, we have a Parole Act and that is where any changes to the Parole Board would fall under. We have just increased from seven to 12 years when a person can come before the Parole Board. That is set out, irrespective of whether somebody has engaged with education, psychosexual supports or any other type of supports. What happens afterwards is what the Parole Board must take into account. Any changes that fall under the Parole Act would not sit under this legislation. It has been made very clear to us by the Prison Service and the Parole Board that it is only effective where people admit their guilt. As Deputy Naughten says, it is very effective and where people engage in these programmes, they are less likely to reoffend, but if someone has not admitted their guilt or that what they did was wrong, engaging with these type of programmes simply will not work. The Parole Board takes that type of engagement into account, and somebody is less likely to be released if they have not engaged in any way, shape or form, but if any changes were to happen, it would have to be reflected in the Parole Act.

In the final piece, what Deputy Naughten has proposed here is essentially already set out in law. The law is very clear that the right to be forgotten is not an absolute right. That is the law. It is very clear. The Parole Board must take on board what is relevant to the public interest, including previous convictions. That clearly includes convictions for sexual offences. What I am saying in terms of further engagement once this Bill is implemented is that we will engage with those companies and make sure they fully understand the law. Deputy Naughten noted that people have had to waive anonymity. If there are examples where companies have breached the law and removed content or data which are clearly in the public interest or clearly include people’s previous convictions, then they are in breach of the law. If we do not know about them then nothing can be done, so if there are very clear examples of where that has happened, then it would be very helpful to know that. The law is the law and I am not sure if we can strengthen it any further. By implementing this legislation and then engaging with that particular sector to make sure that the companies are clear about what is set out in the law and what has been set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union might go some way to making sure it is absolutely understood.